Is the population your are working with in your activism project entitled to "group rights"? If so, what kind of group rights should they have? How does Tully's notion of "modern citizenship" impact the groups you are working with? Negatively or positively? Has there been a convergence in attitudes regarding the population/issue you are working with? Why or why not?
Because most of society associates my population with the minority population then most would say they are entitled to group rights. Given that this population is a minority already I think they are entitled to group rights. These group rights involving mostly the opportunity to be given assistance. Not necessarily "special rights" in a society but more so the ability to have a fair chance at life compared to others. This is also a sticky situation because there is always the opposing saying that "everyone can make it if they try". For some they are stronger at being able to overcome challenges while others accept defeat and turn to other things. There is also another problem with this for me, if they are entitled to these group rights, then does that mean it's the responsibility of the government to take care of them? I assume the answer would be yes. If we are talking about actions like affirmative action and no child left behind then yes it is the government's responsibility. Anything after that though if those aren't working enough is the responsibility of the parents. And then the responsibility of school, also programs set up by non-profits.
In regards to the Tully reading and our discussions in class I think that the notion of modern citizenship, from the way I understand it, negatively impacts the population I am working with.
If we refer to this statement to answer the question: "modern citizens see their modular form of citizenship as universal and superior and all others as particular and inferior, and see themselves as having the imperial right and duty to enter into other societies, free them from their inferior ways, impose the institutional preconditions of modern citizenship, which conveniently brings unconscionable profits to their corporations and unconscionable inequality to the people they are modernizing, and use violence and military rule against those envious ‘anti-moderns’ who resist." Then i feel like we are negatively impacting the population we deal with depending on which culture we are referring to here. If we are referring to the rich then they probably do believe that they are superior to these other cultures and can take advantage of the situation. Usually finding a way to make a profit from entering into these communities. What I have found though is that most of this is not particularly true for youth programs that keep at risk youth and other youth out of trouble. Almost all of it is volunteer, and none of these programs have a large fee that can't be paid. It's really easy to get youth involved in after school activities and it doesn't seem like there is a time where the community feels superior but more feels like they are doing something for a great good. Which as we discussed in class at the very beginning may be a form of feeling superior.
I don't really think there has been a convergence in attitudes in my issue. There is enough about it in mass media to really get out to everyone. It's very hush hush if you will. It's not like homelessness where everyone is aware of it, and never does anything about it, because what can you do, it's such a huge issue? The only convergence I can see is how at risk youth is being dealt with here and how it is also being tackled in other countries, usually dealt the same way, through non-profit and non-governmental programs. While I was in South Africa, I learned a lot about how they deal with youth. In the townships, gangs, drugs, STDs, and alcohol are very easy to get into if the youth aren't kept busy. There are now several non-profits set up in and around Cape Town townships that work to keep these youth out of trouble in townships. I went to the Amy Biehl foundation while i was there to learn about these programs. Amy Biehl was a full bright scholar who died during the apartheid two days before she was supposed to leave South Africa. She was white and headed to a township in the middle of an apartheid protest and because these youth had known nothing but "white are evil" they killed her. Now the foundation works with 8 different schools in the area in after school programs to keep them from "becoming victims of the townships''. Most of these programs are set up by US citizens who fully believe in providing the opportunities necessary to succeed. With this foundation their graduation from high school rate has gone up, and the amount of students going to college, graduating and getting jobs. I think the convergence exists in situations like that.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Posted in | |
1 Comments »
Good points...why do you think most would say that at-risk youth are entitle to group rights? Don't we in this country strongly resist the idea of "special rights" for minorities? Nice insight Tully's view of modern citizenship. Good on convergence, although you say you don't see it than give a good example of how it's happening.